Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Toris inari 7.jpg
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
File:Toris inari 7.jpg, not featured[edit]
Voting period is over. Please don't add any new votes.Voting period ends on 18 Jul 2014 at 11:57:21 (UTC)
Visit the nomination page to add or modify image notes.
Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Pundit - I got absolutely fascinated by this shrine complex in Fushimi Inari Torii in Kyoto. What do you think? -- Pundit (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Support as nom/creator. Pundit (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)- Support Good solution to what is evidently quite a difficult composition judging from the category. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Support I'm supporting everything orange today. -- Uberprutser 17:43, 9 July 2014
- Good luck. I'll be watching myself. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Oppose Nice comp, but the green leaves outside look heavily and unnaturally oversaturated to me. --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)- Oppose Massively oversaturated (take a look on the histrogram of the red chanel), perspective issues. --Tuxyso (talk) 07:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- So is Van Gogh's Sunflowers. What exactly is the perspective issue here? It's 18mm on a f3.5 lens, pretty standard. Looks fine to me. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Take a look at the bottom of the columns at the left side - they look rather distorted. The columns are not fully straight in real but also not that converging as the photo implies (take a look on other photos in the same catgegory). But the main reason for my oppose is the massively blown red channel not the perspective. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Colors are definitely in vivid mode and may be overdone, I'm curious though what could I have possibly do better next time to make the columns more straight? Do you think that the lenses distorted the actual view? Pundit (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Have you used a tripod in combination with a leveler? Have you done any perspective corrections on the computer or is the photo "out of the cam"? --Tuxyso (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have Nikon Capture NX2 and it's default Distortion control of 10% has a barely noticeable effect on the image. The saturation isn't "massive". It's comfortably within 10% in NX2 I would say and a glance at the category confirms the image is not deceiving the viewer, the FP criterion. There's no such thing as the "right" image in photography (lesson 1) and I'm worried that criticism at this level might be alienating ordinary contributors with realtively unsophisticated equipment or resources. It's essentially elitist in my view, and while it has it may have place amongst established contributors of images on Commons, I do think we should be wary of discouraging new contributors. The image looks great. End of. And my comment about composition is quite right, as you can readily confirm looking through the category. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- There’s no such thing as "the image looks great" (lesson 2), it just may look great for you. Please allow others to have entirely different views and opinions. And de gustibus non est disputandum. For instance, I don’t approve of candy colours at all. My nomination of Pen-y-ghent from the east looks great too for me, but nobody seems to like it. So what? --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Called "wow" here (lesson 3, there really is such a thing). You're not raising issues of taste but technical matters as if they preclude nomination prima facie . And of your two nominations of Pen-y-ghent I supported the first but not the second from the east, which is quite ordinary lacking all wow. What I didn't do was post an "oppose" saying it was nothing special in my own view and opinion to which I'm surely entitled. I would only do that, and probably as a comment, if I felt the image was receiving inordinate praise. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- There’s no such thing as "the image looks great" (lesson 2), it just may look great for you. Please allow others to have entirely different views and opinions. And de gustibus non est disputandum. For instance, I don’t approve of candy colours at all. My nomination of Pen-y-ghent from the east looks great too for me, but nobody seems to like it. So what? --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- I have Nikon Capture NX2 and it's default Distortion control of 10% has a barely noticeable effect on the image. The saturation isn't "massive". It's comfortably within 10% in NX2 I would say and a glance at the category confirms the image is not deceiving the viewer, the FP criterion. There's no such thing as the "right" image in photography (lesson 1) and I'm worried that criticism at this level might be alienating ordinary contributors with realtively unsophisticated equipment or resources. It's essentially elitist in my view, and while it has it may have place amongst established contributors of images on Commons, I do think we should be wary of discouraging new contributors. The image looks great. End of. And my comment about composition is quite right, as you can readily confirm looking through the category. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- No perspective corrections or tripod, I leaned the camera on one of the poles of stability. Pundit (talk) 11:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Colors are over saturated and when you tilt the lens you will gets perspective distortion. When it looks good, what's the problem? Seems like that perspective is the new noise to complain about. --Baykedevries (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Have you used a tripod in combination with a leveler? Have you done any perspective corrections on the computer or is the photo "out of the cam"? --Tuxyso (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Colors are definitely in vivid mode and may be overdone, I'm curious though what could I have possibly do better next time to make the columns more straight? Do you think that the lenses distorted the actual view? Pundit (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Take a look at the bottom of the columns at the left side - they look rather distorted. The columns are not fully straight in real but also not that converging as the photo implies (take a look on other photos in the same catgegory). But the main reason for my oppose is the massively blown red channel not the perspective. --Tuxyso (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- So is Van Gogh's Sunflowers. What exactly is the perspective issue here? It's 18mm on a f3.5 lens, pretty standard. Looks fine to me. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Support I like it. --Baykedevries (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Despite the very short description? :-P --Kreuzschnabel (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- You're right. I apologize for my rant and inconsistencies. I'll try to do better. --Baykedevries (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Strong oversaturation, perspective distortion, CA. --Kadellar (talk) 10:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
- It's roughly what I would expect after doing an eighth the evening before and not exhaling ( to quote an amusing joke of the lately departed Stephen Gaskin RIP). I mean the whole point about this image is that it is saturated. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 01:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose Over saturated such that red channel is completely blown. Strange vignetting in corners. It is a subject that could have wow, but I'm not convinced the camera framing is doing the best here. -- Colin (talk) 12:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Confirmed results:
